MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163653086 · doi:10.1139/z01-156

Range use and movement rates of woodland caribou in Saskatchewan

2001· article· en· W2163653086 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
W. James Rettie, François Messier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodland caribouBiologyRange (aeronautics)PredationEcologyWoodlandIce calvingBorealSeasonalityPredatorHome rangeHabitatLactation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We employed satellite-telemetry data to examine seasonal movement rates, annual- and seasonal-range sizes, and season-to-season range fidelity of female woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) from five populations in the boreal forest of Saskatchewan. The populations studied are limited by predation, and we investigated whether female caribou exhibited movement and range use consistent with predator avoidance. Additionally, we document an animal-centred technique for assessing site fidelity on the basis of individual range use throughout a year. Females accompanied by calves had lower movement rates and smaller seasonal ranges than females without calves. Movement rates among female caribou tended to decline between the rut and the postcalving and summer seasons. Trends indicated that seasonal ranges were larger prior to calving than during the postcalving and summer seasons. We interpreted the range sizes and movement rates observed as being consistent with predator avoidance in nonmigratory caribou populations. Despite these results and high rates of calf mortality in the area, we did not find interannual fidelity to calving sites.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations97
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207